Development of the “Social Studies Course Engagement Scale” for Elementary School Students

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to develop the “Social Studies Course Engagement Scale” to be used for 4th grade elementary school students. Despite the critical importance of the engagement for the social studies course, no engagement scales developed specifically for the social studies course were found in the literature. A total of 730 4th grade elementary school students were included in the development of the scale. As a result of “exploratory factor analysis”, a scale structure consisting of 12 items and 2 sub-dimensions was created. It was determined that the created structure explained a total variance of 51.62%. The first dimension of the scale, individual engagement, helped explain 39.90% of the total variance, while the second dimension, interaction engagement assisted in clarifying 11.72% of the total variance. As a result of “confirmatory factor analysis”, it was determined that the structure of the scale was adequate. The reliability of the scale was analyzed using “Cronbach's Alpha”, “McDonald's Omega” and test-retest reliability coefficients were used. Both “Cronbach's Alpha” and “McDonald's Omega” coefficients were calculated as 0.81. Test-retest reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.72. It was determined that the “Social Studies Course Engagement Scale” is a reliable and valid measurement tool.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• social studies
• course engagement
• scale development
• elementary education

Kaynakça

1. Alan, Ü., & Atalay-Kabasakal, K. (2020). Effect of number of response options on the psychometric properties of Likert-type scales used with children. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100895
2. Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
3. Cobo-Rendon, R., Lopez-Angulo, Y., Saez-Delgado, F., & Mella-Norambuena, J. (2022). Engagement, academic motivation, and adjustment of university students. Revista Electronica Educare, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.26-3.15
4. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
5. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
6. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
7. Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12810
8. Devellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development (2nd ed.). Sage.

9. Farris, P. J. (2015). Elementary and middle school social studies: An interdisciplinary multicultural approach (7th ed.). Waveland.
10. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage.
11. Finn, J. D. (1991). Measuring participation among elementary grade students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 393-402.
12. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
13. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
14. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 763-782). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37
15. Froment, F., & Gutierrez, M. D. (2022). The prediction of teacher credibility on student motivation: Academic engagement and satisfaction as mediating variables. Revista de Psicodidactica, 27(2), 149-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2022.04.003
16. Fuller, K. A., Karunaratne, N. S., Naidu, S., Exintaris, B., Short, J. L., Wolcott, M. D., Singleton, S., & White, P. J. (2018). Development of a self-report instrument for measuring in-class student engagement reveals that pretending to engage is a significant unrecognized problem. Plos One, 13(10), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205828
17. Fung, F., Tan, C. Y., & Chen, G. (2018). Student engagement and mathematics achievement: Unraveling main and interactive effects. Psychology In The Schools, 55(7), 815-831. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22139
18. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson.
19. Gürer, M. D., Yıldırım, Z. (2014). Effectiveness of learning objects in primary school social studies education: Achievement, perceived learning, engagement and usability. Education and Science, 39(176), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3714
20. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
21. Hayes, A. F., Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But… Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
22. İlhan, M., Taşdelen-Teker, G., Güler, N., & Ergenekon, O. (2022). Effects of category labeling with emojis on likert-type scales on the psychometric properties of measurements. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(2), 221-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829211047677
23. Jiang, Y. L., & Peng, J. E. (2023). Exploring the relationships between learners' engagement, autonomy, and academic performance in an English language MOOC. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2164777
24. Kim, R., & Song, H. D. (2023). Developing an agentic engagement scale in a self-paced MOOC. Distance Education, 44(1), 120-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2155619
25. Lin, S. H., & Huang, Y. C. (2018). Assessing college student engagement: Development and validation of the student course engagement scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(7), 694-708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917697618
26. Maamin, M., Maat, S. M., & Iksan, Z. H. (2022). The influence of student engagement on mathematical achievement among secondary school students. Mathematics, 10(41). https://doi.org/10.3390/math10010041
27. Mameli, C., & Passini, S. (2017). Measuring four-dimensional engagement in school: A validation of the student engagement scale and of the agentic engagement scale. Testing Psychometrics Methodology in Applied Psychology, 24(4), 527-541. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM24.4.4
28. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153-184.
29. Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development and validation of the student interest and engagement scales, Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 99-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679244
30. Mellor, D., & Moore, K. A. (2014). The use of likert scales with children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(3), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst079
31. Mindes, G. (2014). Social studies for young children: Preschool and primary curriculum anchor (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
32. National Council for the Social Studies. (NCSS). (2010). Curriculum standards for social studies: Expectetions of excellence. NCSS
33. Pallant, J. (2015). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Allen & Unwin
34. Parsons, J. & Taylor, L. (2011). Student Engagement: What Do We Know and what Should We Do?. University of Alberta.
35. Parsons, S. A., Malloy, J. A., Parsons, A. W., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2018). Sixth-grade students’ engagement in academic tasks. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 232-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1246408
36. Phan, T., McNeil, S. G., & Robin, B. R. (2016). Students’ patterns of engagement and course performance in a massive open online course. Computers & Education, 95, 36-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.015
37. Putwain, D. W., Symes, W., Nicholson, L. J., & Becker, S. (2018). Achievement goals, behavioural engagement, and mathematics achievement: A mediational analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 68, 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.09.006
38. Putwain, D. W., Nicholson, L. J., Pekrun, R., Becker, S., & Symes, W. (2019). Expectancy of success, attainment value, engagement, and achievement: A moderated mediation analysis. Learning and Instruction, 60, 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.11.005
39. Putwain, D. W., & Wood, P. (2023). Riding the bumps in mathematics learning: Relations between academic buoyancy, engagement, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101691
40. Ravandpour, A. (2022). The relationship between efl learners' flipped learning readiness and their learning engagement, critical thinking, and autonomy: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Language and Education, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12654
41. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
42. Riswanto, Heydarnejad, T., Dehkordi, E. S., & Parmadi, B. (2022). Learning-oriented assessment in the classroom: The contribution of self-assessment and critical thinking to EFL learners’ academic engagement and self-esteem. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00210-4
43. Ryu, S., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Coding classroom interactions for collective and individual engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1001891
44. Saripudin, D., Komalasari, K., & Anggraini, D. N. (2021). Value-based digital storytelling learning media to foster student character. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14221a
45. Sarıtepeci, M., & Çakır, H. (2015). The effect of blended learning environments on student's academic achievement and student engagement: A study on social studies course. Education and Science, 40(177), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2592
46. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
47. Schmitt, H. A., Witmer, S. E., & Rowe, S. S. (2022). Text readability, comprehension instruction, and student engagement: Examining associated relationships during text-based social studies instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 61(1), 62-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2021.2008561
48. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.
49. Siddiqi, A. F., Shabbir, M. S., Abbas, M., Mahmood, A., & Salman, R. (2022). Developing and testing student engagement scale for higher educational students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(1), 424-439. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2020-0388
50. Singh, A. K., & Srivastava, S. (2014). Development and validation of student engagement scale in the Indian context. Global Business Review, 15(3), 505-515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150914535137
51. Singh, M., James, P. S., Paul, H., & Bolar, K. (2022). Impact of cognitive-behavioral motivation on student engagement. Heliyon, 8(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09843
52. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
53. Thomas, D. J. (2022). “If I can help somebody”: The civic-oriented thought and practices of Black male teacher-coaches. Theory & Research in Social Education, 50(3), 464-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2078258
54. Van Laerhoven, H., Van Der Zaag-Loonen, H. J., Derkx, B. H. F. (2004). A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children’s questionnaires. Acta Paediatrica, 93(6), 830-835. https://doi.org/10.1080/08035250410026572
55. Vongkulluksn, V. W., Lu, L., Nelson, M. J., & Xie, K. (2022). Cognitive engagement with technology scale: A validation study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 419-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10098-9
56. Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The classroom engagement inventory. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 517-535. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000050
57. Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., & Hofkens, T. L. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008
58. Zhang, Y., Yang, X., Sun, X., & Kaiser, G. (2023). The reciprocal relationship among Chinese senior secondary students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and cognitive engagement in learning mathematics: A three‑wave longitudinal study. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 55, 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01465-0